2
April 30, 2018 (the trust).4 About a year later, they served the tenants with a
notice of termination of tenancy, claiming an intent to move Vinokur’s
mother into the tenants’ unit under the authority of the family move-in
provision.
After the tenants declined to vacate the premises, appellants brought
this unlawful detainer action against them. The complaint alleges that
appellants “hold[] 100% of the interest in the property and the title as
trustees” of the trust. Appellants also attached the notice of termination as
an exhibit to the complaint.
The tenants demurred, arguing that (1) the eviction was not being
sought by a “landlord” as defined in rule 12.14(a) and (2) the notice of
termination “add[ed] requirements more onerous” in various respects than
those of the Rent Ordinance. In response, appellants argued that they as
trustees, not the trust itself, hold title to the property. Thus, although
admitting that a “trust is not a natural person,” they argued that they, a
group of natural persons, were the landlord, not the trust. Appellants also
responded that the notice of termination was proper.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and
entered judgment in the tenants’ favor. The court’s written order recited,
“The property is owned by a trust and not a ‘natural person.’ For purposes of
[Rent Ordinance, § 37.9, subdivision (a)(8),] a landlord is a ‘natural person’ or
‘a group of natural persons.’ The drafters of the [Rent Ordinance] and [the
Rules] limited the definition of the landlord as stated above and excluded